Where Drug Testing Can't Be Optional

The most interesting drug-related development of the past week wasn't in baseball; it came from NASCAR and was discussed in this nice piece of reporting by ESPN's David Newton.

While preaching the virtues of its policy, NASCAR tests only four to eight of its competitors weekly. In other words, the laws of probability suggest the unluckiest of drivers will probably be tested before eight of 38 starts a year.

That's not good enough. If there's a sport that desperately needs weekly, universal screening, it's the one in which 43 cars, each of which weighs 3,400 pounds, go around high-banked turns at 150 mph.

If a baseball player does steroids, what's the worst that can reasonably happen? He breaks the most hallowed record in sports and we're left to wonder if the achievement is legitimate. We lament the benefits of cheating.

If a NASCAR driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the worst possible outcome is rather obvious, and it's more serious than the stuff that fuels barroom arguments over home run kings. NASCAR has made its competitions safer this decade, and that's important. But that shouldn't facilitate complacency.

Sure, you're talking about a considerable increase in the cost of drug testing, but the organization can handle it. If a screening that includes steroids and street drugs runs $300 apiece -- a reasonable estimate -- then NASCAR would wind up spending about $500,000 a year if it tests every driver before every race. That's about the amount of cash that Elliott Sadler pocketed for finishing fifth at this year's Daytona 500.